A thought of 'special' races

It just seems unrealistic to have races that have no need for money to have it and trade it.

Just treat the bc's as being a unit of resource measurement. They don't actually have money, but they still have the raw resources to trade... *shrugs

I'd say that races that have no need for food are more of a problem than those that don't use a monetary system.

Yea, food too. That shoulb be able to be customized as well.

Just treat the bc's as being a unit of resource measurement. They don't actually have money, but they still have the raw resources to trade...

yeah agree but they wouldnt trade or be in the UP. but jubjub15 is on to a good point, as are you    

Food is only used for 'creating' more population, money is only used for maintaining and making things. Morale is another factor in 'creating' (or stopping the loss of) population, and taxes are a way of having more creation capacity (by ways of money) in exchange for less population growth.

So, what about races that don't need money, or don't need food?

No-Money races: 'Industrial Capacity' represents the proportion of resources that are assigned deliberately or otherwise to the production of factories, ships, and prototypes-- the more that's put into these every week, the less that goes into the stockpile(BC reserves, money). To pay for more industrial capacity you may raise your taxes, and the lessened morale means slower population growth; why would this be so for a non-monetary race? Because less of their resources are being used to feed or create new citizens, and less of their resources are being used to maintain, feed, or refuel their citizens.

No-Food races: Everything needs fuel of some kind to keep going, if your species is immune to this then it's so powerful no other species in GC2 could compete with it. Fissionable material doesn't occur naturally, perhaps a race fueled by radioactive power cores needs a kind of 'farm' to find and process radioactives into a usable state. Without 'farms' of feedstock, most parasitic species would work through their food supply and be unable to grow their population or to continue to exist in a non-dormant state.

I think what it really comes down to is that if your species has infinite resources and therefore no need for an 'economy' of any kind, then it's too powerful to be a competitor in GC2. If your species has no need for food of any kind and can instead grow and maintain its population indefinitely, then it too is too powerful to compete.

Yea, about the borg. They have no need for morale stuff or an embassy, they are drones that follow every order.

I wonder who would win. The Borg or the Flood?

I think the questions raised in this thread are related to some discussion elsewhere about the colonization rush "problem." I can see two different, not necessarily incompatible, ways to approach broadening the core political economy models for GC3 (yes, I think the point is moot for this version): 1) re-build the economy to separate use value from exchange value (money is a cultural thing, not like gravity or isotope half-lives), and 2) drastically increase effort on the text-based side of the game UI (narrative layer) to ensure that when you play different species, you have a different "read" on the underlying models.

It does make sense what OP suggest and G.W. Swicord...

LOL made think of Diplomacy screen: "We are Korath, its matter of time before we completly annhilate your species as we did with countless other, we shall cleanse galaxy of filth, that are all other sentient beings exept Korath.In meanwhile we require trade agreement with your goverment to build up and support our military might...nice doing buisness with you!"